Chicago gets spanked by a Federal Judge once again!

This is a discussion on Chicago gets spanked by a Federal Judge once again! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Part of Chicago's guns laws gets struck down.
Federal judge strikes down part of Chicago's gun law - chicagotribune.com...

Will things change? Maybe in the long run. One of my family is a Chicago cop and is very much familiar with this process. All I can say is a ruling by a judge isn't going to change much. It's still a corrupt process. Is it a step in the right direction? Yes.

Good ruling by the judge. The man was denied a CWL because of a misdemeanor conviction of possessing a firearm in a public street. It's quite ridiculous. Now to wad up the rest of the toilet paper masquerading as gun legislation.

Really? Here's what the story said: "when a federal judge ruled that the section banning permits for people convicted of unlawful use of a weapon is vague and unconstitutional."

Sorry, I like the idea of not giving permits to folks who are convicted of unlawful use of a weapon. They already
showed their irresponsibility. Why should they get a permit? I don't understand the ruling.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

Good ruling by the judge. The man was denied a CWL because of a misdemeanor conviction of possessing a firearm in a public street. It's quite ridiculous. Now to wad up the rest of the toilet paper masquerading as gun legislation.

I don't like this ruling. I have little tolerance for people who are convicted for any weapons crime.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

^ Agreed. He was convicted of illegally carrying a firearm. May not be the end of the world, but he still made a choice to break the law. I dont know if someone with that mindset needs to be carrying a firearm. I wonder where this guy draws the line? Only obey laws that you agree with? Either way, this guy is not a good advocate for the 2nd Amendment.

chicago is doing everything it can to neutralize or minimize the effects of the Heller Decision. i expect this to continue, but i also expect that the city will eventually be hauled, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century.

If he was convicted of unlawfully carrying a firearm on the streets in Chicago, I really don't want to judge him harshly. Yeah, I'm sure he knew about the law, but if he felt it was better to go to jail than to die because he couldn't protect himself, then I understand completely. I don't think that's reckless or something that should keep him from keeping his right to bear arms.

^ Agreed. He was convicted of illegally carrying a firearm. May not be the end of the world, but he still made a choice to break the law. I dont know if someone with that mindset needs to be carrying a firearm. I wonder where this guy draws the line? Only obey laws that you agree with? Either way, this guy is not a good advocate for the 2nd Amendment.

First point...Totally agree. I live in the communist state of Illinois and I hate the gun laws here. BUT I abide by them. We don't have the right or the luxury of deciding what is a good law or a bad law. The law is the law and this guy broke the law. I would love to conceal carry here but I don't. Anyone thinks they can do what they want is no different than any other criminal is this country. Breaking the law is breaking the law. We don't want that type with a firearm or CCW.

Second point...it will take a lot more to change things in Illinois. Laws and rights don't mean a thing when you have a corrupt system administering the process.

If he was convicted of unlawfully carrying a firearm on the streets in Chicago, I really don't want to judge him harshly. Yeah, I'm sure he knew about the law, but if he felt it was better to go to jail than to die because he couldn't protect himself, then I understand completely. I don't think that's reckless or something that should keep him from keeping his right to bear arms.

Ok. Lets play:

You live in a 'May Issue' state. You have no record and would otherwise be qualified to receive a CCW permit. The sheriffs office is corrupt and for whatever reason doesn't issue you the permit (Chicago situation, except its a permit to own in the home). Because you feel you have the right to defend yourself and your family you decide to carry anyway. He's not harming anyone or being reckless...just wants the right to protect his family. Are you ok with this?

Regardless of the situation he didn't like the gun laws and went ahead and decided he knew better. Just because the gun was in his home doesn't make it a better situation. Now he pays the consequences for his actions.

You live in a 'May Issue' state. You have no record and would otherwise be qualified to receive a CCW permit. The sheriffs office is corrupt and for whatever reason doesn't issue you the permit (Chicago situation, except its a permit to own in the home). Because you feel you have the right to defend yourself and your family you decide to carry anyway. He's not harming anyone or being reckless...just wants the right to protect his family. Are you ok with this?

Regardless of the situation he didn't like the gun laws and went ahead and decided he knew better. Just because the gun was in his home doesn't make it a better situation. Now he pays the consequences for his actions.

Yes, I'm ok with that scenario you presented and choosing to protect himself and/or his family rather than obeying an unjust law. He took his gamble and lost (at first) and got 12 months probation and was denied his permit. He received his punishment according to the law. The provision of the law was thrown out as being too vague (which it was) and the man now qualifies for his permit, which I believe he received.

I normally don't think too highly of people who go out of their way to break laws they don't agree with, but in this case, I'm ok with him trying to protect himself in a very dangerous area when the government is doing everything it can to keep him in harm's way. I do my best to be a law-abiding citizen in all aspects, but if the government tried to jeopardize my life or the lives of my family through careless or harmful legislation, I would be ok with doing what I needed to do and take the punishment allotted. If I could do what this guy did and get those laws overturned, then that's even better.